DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Prosecutor V B R Chaandrran [2006] SGDC 301

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Prosecutor V B R Chaandrran [2006] SGDC 301 LawNet – Legal Research http://www.lawnet.com.sg.ezlibproxy1.ntu.edu.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subact... Public Prosecutor v B R Chaandrran [2006] SGDC 301 Suit No : DAC 57653/2005, MA 183/2006 Decision : 26 Dec 2006 Date Court : District Court Coram : Kaur Jasvender Counsel : Lee Cheow Han (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the prosecution, Ramesh Tiwary (Ramesh Tiwary) and Ranjit Singh (Francis Khoo & Lim) for the accused 26 December 2006 District Judge Jasvender Kaur: 1 The accused was convicted after a trial of engaging in a conspiracy with one Mak Yew Loong Colin (“Colin Mak”) to arrange a contract for the acquisition of 20,000 AKMS rifles valued at US$3,400,000 (S$5,712,000) between 11 May 2005 and 13 September 2005 when he was not registered with Singapore Customs to broker in strategic goods, having reason to believe that the contract was likely to result in the removal of the 20,000 AKMS rifles from Bulgaria to Syria, an offence under section 6(1)(a) of the Strategic Goods (Control) Act (Cap 300) (“the Act”) read with section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. Against that conviction and sentence he has brought this appeal. Prosecution's case Undisputed facts 2 Between February/ March 2004 and September 2005, the accused was an operations manager at Dannhauser International Pte Ltd ("Dannhauser"). Dannhauser was registered with the Director-General of Singapore Customs to broker in strategic goods as required under Regulation 14 of the Strategic Goods (Control) Regulations 2004. 3 The accused and Colin Mak were not registered to broker in strategic goods. 4 On 14 September 2005 at about 2.25 pm, officers from the Singapore Customs, led by the investigation officer, Higher Superintendent of Customs ('HSC') Samadi Bin Aman (PW6), raided the office of Dannhauser at Kaki Bukit Road. The officers seized the computer used by the accused. 5 On the same day, at about 1.35 pm, SSC Chong Wei Hoong (PW4) and a team of customs officers raided the residence of Colin Mak. SSC Chong did an imaging of the hard disc of the computers found in the living room and the bedroom of Colin Mak. 6 At about 7.30 pm the same day, another team of customs officers accompanied the accused to his residence at Hougang Avenue 7 and seized his computer, which was in the living room. 7 Between 15 and 20 September 2005, SSC Pang Teck Loon (PW5) conducted computer forensics examination on the computers seized from the accused’s office and his residence. The e-mails and documents retrieved from the computer used by the accused at Dannhauser were admitted as exhibits P2 to P6 and P21 to P111. In particular, the following e-mails were retrieved: 1 of 17 4/1/2015 1:39 PM LawNet – Legal Research http://www.lawnet.com.sg.ezlibproxy1.ntu.edu.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subact... (a) An e-mail dated 11 May 2005 from Colin Mak to the accused stating the availability of 38,000 AKMS rifles from Bulgaria (Exh, P32); (b) A proforma invoice no. 34889A dated 10 September 2005 issued by Protec Consulting Co. (“Protec”) to Al Thika Telecommunication Services of Jordan for the sale of 20,000 units of AKMS rifles at US$3,400,000 (US$170 per unit) and to be delivered from Bulgaria to Syria (Exh P21); (c) A proforma invoice no. 34889A dated 10 September 2005 issued by Protec to Al Thika Telecommunication Services of Jordan for the sale of 25 units of industrial machinery at the price of US$3,400,000 to be delivered to Syria (Exh. P22); and (d) A commission agreement dated 30 August 2005 between Protec, represented by one Tony Thille, the CEO of Protec and the accused, where it was agreed that the accused was to receive a payment of US$10 per unit (i.e. US$200,000) from Protec upon the successful delivery and payment of the AKMS rifles to Syria (Exh. P23). 8 Computer forensics examination on the images found in the hard discs of the computers seized from Colin Mak was conducted by SSC Chong. The e-mails retrieved were admitted as exhibits P7 to P20. In particular, the following e-mails were retrieved: (a) E-mail sent between 10 and 11 May 2005 from the accused to Colin Mak where the accused enquired whether Colin Mak could supply AKMS rifles (Exh. P9); and (b) E-mail dated 11 May 2005 from Tony Thille to Colin Mak to the effect that Protec could obtain the supply of 38,000 AKMS rifles from a Bulgarian supplier (exh. P11). Prosecution's evidence (i) Fernando Moderage Tissa (PW1) 9 In late April 2005, Fernando received a call from his friend, Koh Kah Leong Leon ("Leon"). Leon told him that he has a friend dealing in private jets, and requested Tissa’s help to find buyers for the private jets. 10 Arising from what Leon had said, Tissa arranged to meet the accused whom he knew was dealing in military equipment. They met at a coffee shop at Kaki Bukit. Tissa asked the accused if he could find buyers for private jets. The accused was interested to do so and requested to meet Leon. Under cross-examination, Tissa disagreed that he told the accused to find buyers for military equipment as well. 11 Subsequently, Tissa contacted Leon and arranged for a meeting with Leon's friend, Colin Mak, at the coffee shop at Kaki Bukit. At this meeting in May 2005, Tissa, the accused, Leon and Colin Mak were present. Tissa’s evidence was that the accused and Colin Mak initially discussed about dealing in private jets. After sometime, he heard them discussing about dealing in rifles. He heard that they wanted to buy and sell rifles. He said that the quantity of rifles mentioned was a few thousands. (ii) Koh Kah Leong Leon (PW2) 12 Leon met Colin Mak in April 2005. Colin Mak told him that he deals in aircraft, military and security items and requested him to introduce buyers in return for a commission. Subsequently, Leon contacted Tissa and asked him if he could recommend buyers for aircrafts. 13 In May 2005, Tissa informed him that he would introduce a person who might be interested in buying aircrafts. Leon agreed to meet the person. He also contacted Colin Mak and informed him of the proposed meeting. Colin Mak agreed to attend the meeting. 2 of 17 4/1/2015 1:39 PM LawNet – Legal Research http://www.lawnet.com.sg.ezlibproxy1.ntu.edu.sg/lrweb/tools.do?subact... 14 A few days later, the accused met him, Colin and Tissa at a coffee shop at Kaki Bukit. Colin and the accused discussed about dealing in private jets. Later he heard them discussing about dealing in military items - such as MIG fighter jets, missiles, bombs and rifles. Under cross-examination, he said Colin Mak got excited and started to talk about bombs, missiles and MIG jets, and the accused asked him if could obtain such items. It was also his evidence that he heard the accused telling Colin Mak that he has a buyer who was interested in AKMS rifles. Colin Mak replied that he could get the AKMS rifles. Leon remembered that the quantity of rifles mentioned was in the thousands. 15 After half an hour to one hour, Leon and Colin Mak left. Leon said he scolded Colin Mak for wanting to deal in AKMS rifles and told him that he did not want to have anything to do with the deal in AKMS rifles. (iii) RS Murali Dran Naidu (“PW3") 16 Murali is the managing director of Dannhauser. Sometime in January 2005, Murali was informed by the accused that one George Nawfal (“George”) from Sakr Trading in Lebanon had contacted Dannhauser and was interested in purchasing M16 rifles and magazines. The accused was assigned to handle the project. Subsequently, the accused informed him that George also wanted to purchase 20,000 units of AKMS rifles for the Syrian Armed Forces. 17 Murali testified that the accused was entitled to a commission if the deal went through. The amount of the commission was dependant on the profit made. 18 Dannhauser contacted its regular supplier - Imperial Defence Service of the United Kingdom to source for the AKMS rifles from Eastern Europe. Subsequently, Ukraine was identified to be the possible supplier (see e-mail P29). 19 The AKMS deal continued to progress until April 2005 when an impasse was reached on the payment terms. George’s position was that payment by a letter of credit was to be effected only upon arrival of the AKMS rifles in Syria. However, this was not acceptable to Murali, as Dannhauser would then have to bear the financial cost of paying the suppliers first without any guarantee of payment by Sakr Trading. Murali stated that George’s explanation for insisting on the letter of credit being negotiable only upon the goods arriving in Syria was because he claimed that the Syrian government had its AKMS rifles confiscated previously by a neighbouring country when there was a port call by the ship. Murali did not believe this explanation. He said such an incident could not have happened as no country would confiscate the goods of a legal transaction, and the Syrian Government would have protested and taken up its case. Murali sent an e-mail to George to the effect that it would be unacceptable for Dannhauser to be out of pocket (exh P6 at pg 20).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report 2010 - 2011 Contents
    Annual Report 2010 - 2011 Contents 2 Foreword by the Attorney-General 6 Remembrance and Congratulations 10 Our Mission, Vision and Core Values 13 Our Roles 15 Our Corporate Structure A. AGC’s Management Team B. Six Legal Divisions and Two Non-Legal Divisions 29 Our Key Milestones A. As The Government’s Chief Legal Adviser and Counsel i. AGC’s Advisory Work ii. AGC’s Involvement in Litigation iii. AGC in Negotiations iv. AGC as Legislative Draftsman B. As Public Prosecutor C. In Performing Other Assigned Duties of a Legal Character D. Our Corporate Resources 61 Our Training, Development and Outreach 67 The Ties that Bind Us 71 Key Figures for 2010-2011 A. Corporate Awards B. Performance Indicators C. Financial Indicators for FY2010-FY2011 Attorney-General’s Chambers ANNUAL REPORT 2010 - 2011 1 FOREWORD BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL As we look back on these past years, the taxation policies and policies concerning adjust to these changes so that we can function perceptible increase in the complexity of our casino regulation. Cross-Divisional teams effectively. work is particularly striking. This growing were also engaged to deal with cases before complexity has in turn given rise to two the Singapore Courts when we were required With this in mind, I have intensified the consequences, which I elaborate on below. to address constitutional challenges and also commitment of my Chambers to the training, to defend Singapore’s judiciary in the face of development and specialisation of our officers contempt. so that we are well placed to support the THE NEED FOR Government with the highest level of legal iNTER-dIVISIONAL This is perhaps a reality that is ultimately to be services.
    [Show full text]
  • The Criminal Procedure Code 2010
    (2011) 23 SAcLJ Modernising the Criminal Justice Framework 23 MODERNISING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FRAMEWORK The Criminal Procedure Code 2010 The concept of “balancing” prevalent in criminal justice discourse is premised on a paradigm where “state” and “individual” interests are perpetually in conflict. This article outlines the key components of the new Criminal Procedure Code 2010 and discusses another dimension of the state- individual relationship. Rather than being inherently incompatible, synergistic common goals can, on occasion, be pursued between the State and an accused. The article will also consider areas in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 where conflicts between “state” and “individual” interests have in fact arisen, and will outline the pragmatic approach that has been adopted towards their resolution. Melanie CHNG* LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore), LLM (Harvard); Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore); Assistant Director, Ministry of Law. The criminal process is at the heart of the criminal justice system. It is not only a subject of great practical importance; it is also a reflection of our ideals and values as to the way in which we can accord justice to both the guilty and to the innocent.[1] I. Introduction 1 The recent legislative amendments to Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) signify a new chapter in the continuing evolution of Singapore’s criminal justice process. The new Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“New CPC”),2 which came into force on * The opinions expressed in this article are those of its author and are not representative of the official position or policies of the Singapore government. The author is grateful to Mr Amarjeet Singh SC, Ms Jennifer Marie SC, Mr Bala Reddy, Professor Michael Hor, Mr Subhas Anandan, Ms Valerie Thean and Mr Desmond Lee for their invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Civil Procedure
    (2008) 9 SAL Ann Rev Civil Procedure 143 7. CIVIL PROCEDURE Cavinder BULL SC MA (Oxford), LLM (Harvard); Barrister (Gray’s Inn), Attorney-at-Law (New York State); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore). Jeffrey PINSLER SC LLB (Liverpool), LLM (Cambridge), LLD (Liverpool); Barrister (Middle Temple), Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. Appeals Leave to appeal 7.1 In Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King [2008] 2 SLR 529, the Court of Appeal held that where the High Court has refused leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court, there can be no further recourse after the High Court has adjudicated on the matter. This case was an extension of the Court of Appeal’s previous judgment in SBS Transit Ltd v Koh Swee Ann [2004] 3 SLR 365, which concerned an application for leave to appeal against the decision of a Magistrate’s Court. 7.2 Andrew Phang JA reiterated the fundamental principle that where a legal decision cannot be appealed against as of right but requires express permission from a named authority before it can be appealed against, the decision of that authority as to whether or not to grant leave to appeal is final (Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King [2008] 2 SLR 529 at [14]). It is clear from s 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) that the High Court is the authority with the final say as to whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Minlaw) Invited Applications for the Second Round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) Licences on 1 July 2012
    PRESS RELEASE AWARD OF THE SECOND ROUND OF QUALIFYING FOREIGN LAW PRACTICE LICENCES The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) invited applications for the second round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) licences on 1 July 2012. Twenty-three applications were received by the closing date of 31 August 2012. 2 QFLP licences will be awarded to the following four firms (listed in alphabetical order): Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Jones Day; Linklaters, and Sidley Austin. 3 The firms will have up to six months from 1 April 2013 to commence their operations as QFLPs, and their licences will be valid for an initial period of five years from the respective start dates. Background 4 The QFLP scheme was introduced in 2008 following the recommendations of the Committee to Develop the Legal Sector chaired by Justice V K Rajah. The Committee, which included senior lawyers from top local firms, assessed that local firms and local lawyers would benefit from the increased foreign presence and competition over time. 5 The QFLP licences allow Foreign Law Practices (FLPs) to practise in permitted areas of Singapore law1. The scheme seeks to support the growth of key economic sectors, grow the legal sector, as well as to offer additional 1 Permitted areas are all areas except domestic areas of litigation and general practice, for example, criminal law, retail conveyancing, family law and administrative law. The QFLPs can practise the permitted areas through Singapore-qualified lawyers with practising certificates or foreign lawyers holding the foreign practitioner certificate. 1 opportunities for our lawyers. A total of six FLPs2 were awarded QFLP licences in the first round in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Grounds of Decision
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGHC 208 Originating Summons No 980 of 2018 Between Republic of India … Plaintiff And Vedanta Resources plc … Defendant GROUNDS OF DECISION [Arbitration] — [Confidentiality] — [Documents] [Arbitration] — [Confidentiality] — [Evidence used in other proceedings] [Arbitration] — [Interlocutory order or direction] — [Court’s power] [Arbitration] — [Arbitral tribunal] — [Competence] [Arbitration] — [Conduct of arbitration] — [Preliminary issues] [Arbitration] — [Declaratory relief] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................4 THE CAIRN GROUP RESTRUCTURING...............................................................4 INDIA ISSUES ASSESSMENT ORDERS.................................................................4 COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATIONS ........................................................5 THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS ISSUE PROCEDURAL ORDERS ................................6 Cairn Arbitration Procedural Order No. 10..............................................7 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 3............................................9 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 6..........................................10 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 7..........................................11 THE PRELIMINARY QUESTION .............................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • AY2020-2021 Class Timetable
    ACADEMIC YEAR 2020/2021 ‐ SEMESTER 1 Page 1: Semester 1 AY2020‐2021 Timetable (ver 23 July 2020) Version 23 July 2020 MONDAY 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 LC1016 LARC LECTURE LC1003 LAW OF CONTRACT LECTURE {Yale 2} CORE LC1016 LARC TUTORIAL 1 {Yale 2} LC1016 LARC TUTORIAL BURTON ONG, WAYNE COURTNEY, DORA NEO, KELRY LC1016 LARC TUTORIAL {Yale 2} ELEANOR WONG LOI, TIMOTHY LIAU, ALLEN SNG, BENJAMIN WONG Weekly YEAR LC2004 PRINCIPLES OF PROPERTY LAW CORE LECTURE {Yale 3} LC2008A,D & E COMPANY LAW [SECTIONS A, D & E] LC2008C & F COMPANY LAW [SECT C & F] {Yale 4} 2 TEO KEANG SOOD, CHEN WEITSENG, TARA DAVENPORT, KENNETH KHOO, ERNEST LIM, MICHAEL EWING‐CHOW UMAKANTH VAROTTIL, WALTER WOON Weekly HU YING, DARYL YONG, WILLIAM RICQUIER, ELAINE CHEW YEAR LC3001A EVIDENCE (A) LECTURE {Yale 5} CORE JEFFREY PINSLER, CHIN TET YUNG, HO HOCK LAI, MATTHEW SEET UPPER Weekly YR LC6378 DOCTORAL WORKSHOP LC5337 SINGAPORE COMMON LAW OF CONTRACT DAMIAN CHALMERS CORE [Week 1 ‐ 6] Non‐IBL Group 1 LC5405A LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (A) Weekly HELENA WHALEN‐BRIDGE GD NG‐LOY WEE LOON LL4177V/LL5177V/LL6177V ENTERTAINMENT LAW: POP ICONOGRAPHY & CELEBRITY LL4405A/LL5405A/LC5405A/LL6405A LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY A LL4033V/LL5033V/LL6033V INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PROCESS DAVID TAN NG‐LOY WEE LOON ELEANOR WONG, CHEN ZHIDA , TIONG TECK WEE LL4029BV/LL5029BV/LL6029BV INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION LL4317V/LL5317V/LL6317V INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN
    [Show full text]
  • The Road to New Asia Media
    The Road to New Asia Media Having trouble viewing? Experience our Annual Report 09/10 using Augmented Reality! Just follow these simple steps: Just follow these simple steps: 1. Ensure that the black MDA marker , and not the front of the driving licence, is placed parallel 1. Remove the driving licence from the inner cover to the webcam. of this booklet (on your left). You’ll find ablack MDA marker on the back. Also ensure your PC has a 2. Do not block any part of the MDA marker’s black functioning webcam. square with your fingers. 3. Make sure the driving licence is not bent or 2. Insert the Annual Report DVD found above the folded. Markers with creases can impair detection. driving licence. Once the DVD flash menu has loaded, click on “Launch AR Application”. 4. Ensure your camera can detect the driving licence clearly. Markers that are further away are more 3. If this is the first time you are running the application, difficult to detect. you will be prompted to install the programme. 5. If you are still experiencing any issues with Follow the instructions on the screen. detection, please close and restart the application. Also, make sure your PC meets the minimum 4. The programme will then launch automatically. Your operating system requirements. LCD monitor acts as a “magic mirror”. Using the driving licence, face the MDA marker towards the webcam. Hold it within the selection circle for three seconds and watch the magic unfold! Having trouble viewing? Open the flap for more information. CONTENTS Mission and Vision 2 Chairman’s Message
    [Show full text]
  • January 2016
    January 2016 No. Topic Presenter Date Time Venue Organiser Level Category Remarks 1 A Roundtable on Equipping for Court Panellists: 5-Jan-16 5.00 - 6.00 PM The Conference SJC All JOs Court Leadership Leadership Mr Vincent Hoong, Registrar, Room, State Courts Supreme Court (Refreshments Ms Jennifer Marie, Deputy Presiding provided) Judge / Registrar, State Courts Mr Chia Wee Kiat, Deputy Presiding Judge / Registrar, Family Justice Courts 2 Judgment Writing Workshop Emeritus Professor Edward Berry 12-Jan-16 8.30 AM - 5.00 Viewing Gallery, SJC All JOs Bench Skills University of Victoria, British PM Supreme Court Columbia (Refreshments provided) 3 Forensic Document Examination: Handwriting Ms Nellie Cheng 25-Jan-16 5.00 - 6.00 PM Viewing Gallery, SJC All JOs Technology & Sciences Examination is Only the Tip of the Ice-berg Senior Forensic Scientist, Health Supreme Court • Presentation by HSA Sciences Authority (Refreshments Mr Yap Bei Sing provided) Consultant Forensic Scientist, Health Sciences Authority 4 Family Violence - Sharing by the Police Mr She Zhaozuo 26-Jan-16 Lunch-time Auditorium, State FJC All JOs Social Awareness 2 Operations Officer, Operations Courts Department / Community (Refreshments Involvement Division, Singapore provided) Police Force 5 Recent Trends in Judicial Review: New Zealand The Honourable Justice Matthew 26-Jan-16 5.00 - 6.00 PM Viewing Gallery, SJC All JOs Legal Development Experience Palmer, Wellington QC Supreme Court High Court of New Zealand (Refreshments provided) February 2016 No. Topic Presenter Date
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Decision-Making and Explainable Artificial Intelligence
    (2021) 33 SAcLJ 280 JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING AND EXPLAINABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE A Reckoning from First Principles In light of rapid developments in legal technology, it is timely to begin considering whether, and if so how, artificial intelligence (“AI”) can replace judges. However, given that law plays a crucial role in maintaining societal order, that judges are a crucial part of ensuring the continued well-functioning of the law, and also that there are still many unknowns in the use and deployment of AI, it would be prudent to examine and understand exactly what roles judges play in the legal system, and how they do so, before we make any bold steps towards replacing judges with AI. This article examines the current and reasonably foreseeable state of AI to consider its capabilities, as well as the process by which judges make decisions and the duties they are subject to. This article will then consider whether or how AI, given its current and foreseeable state of development, may be used in judicial decision-making, and what safeguards may be required to ensure continued confidence in a well-functioning justice system. Shaun LIM1 LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Research Assistant, Centre for Technology, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & the Law, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore I. Introduction 1 Advancements in artificial intelligence (“AI”) techniques with demonstrable results have led to a boom in AI research, development and marketing, especially in fields dominated by specialist professionals whose knowledge was thought to be impossible for AI to replicate, such as in medicine and law.2 In law itself, AI solutions are being 1 This article expands upon a prior research paper for credit in the course of the author’s LLB degree.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking Back, Forging Ahead
    LOOKING BACK, FORGING AHEAD ANNUAL REPORT 2015/16 CONTENTS MISSION | VISION | CORE VALUES 2 CHAIRMAN'S MESSAGE 3 CHAPTER 1 6 CELEBRATING SG50 WITH UNIQUELY SINGAPOREAN CONTENT 1.1 Lights, Camera, Action! 7 1.2 Game On, Singapore! 10 1.3 Read On, Singapore! 12 CHAPTER 2 13 BEYOND SG50: BUILDING A FUTURE-READY MEDIA SECTOR 2.1 Gearing for Change 14 2.2 Going Global 15 2.3 Enhancing Local Capabilities 19 2.4 Supporting Talents 23 CHAPTER 3 25 CONNECTING COMMUNITIES, PROTECTING CONSUMERS 3.1 Connecting Society through Singapore Stories 26 3.2 Public Education for Digital Media Literacy 29 3.3 Upholding Standards and Consumer Rights 31 CHAPTER 4 33 STRENGTHENING TIES, DEEPENING UNDERSTANDING 4.1 Tracking Media Trends 34 4.2 Engaging the Industry 35 4.3 Engaging our Employees and Giving Back to Society 37 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 39 SENIOR MANAGEMENT 41 ADVISORY COMMITTEES 43 ANNEX 57 FINANCIAL STATEMENT 59 MISSION | VISION | CORE VALUES MISSION The Media Development Authority of Singapore (MDA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Communications and Information, promotes and regulates the media sector so as to contribute towards economic growth and help foster a cohesive and inclusive society in Singapore. To ensure a globally competitive Singapore media sector, MDA invests in: Enhancing the innovative capacity of the media sector; Developing competitive media infrastructure; Nurturing quality manpower; Supporting sustainable enterprise development; and Enabling Singapore media to go global. At the same time, MDA formulates clear and consistent regulatory policies, based on these guiding principles: To foster a pro-business environment for industry players; To ensure fair market conduct and effective competition; To safeguard consumers’ interests; To increase media choices for consumers; To uphold social values in tandem with societal expectations; and To foster a cohesive and inclusive society through quality content with wide reach and impact while promoting nation-building.
    [Show full text]
  • SCMA Distinguished Speaker Series 2014 10 November 2014 Maxwell Chambers MAKING WAVES in ARBITRATION – the SINGAPORE EXPERIENCE Justice Steven Chong
    SCMA Distinguished Speaker Series 2014 10 November 2014 Maxwell Chambers MAKING WAVES IN ARBITRATION – THE SINGAPORE EXPERIENCE Justice Steven Chong I INTRODUCTION 1. Singapore’s rise in prominence in the international arbitration scene has been nothing short of remarkable. It was not more than 20 years ago that we were, in the frank assessment of others, a jurisdiction “naïve of the needs of international commercial arbitration” – a country that “just didn’t get it”.1 Today, however, international opinion about us could not be more different. Take a glance at the recent literature around you and this is immediately apparent. From international surveys to legal bulletins, Singapore has been completely recast as a “regional leader in Asia”,2 a “world-class trailblazer”,3 and a country now firmly finding her place “within a magic circle of global arbitration players”.4 Such admirable recognition certainly gives one a sense of how far we have come, but I believe there is really no better way to appreciate the scale of Singapore’s achievements than to look at the numbers which bear this out. 1 See the anecdotal evidence of Cavinder Bull, SC in “A Hotbed for Arbitration Talent” reported in The Business Times dated 18 May 2011 2 Queen Mary, University of London and White & Case LLP, 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration at p 2 3 Lucy Reed, Mark Mangan and Darius Chan, “Follow the Leader - The Rise of Singapore as a World- Class Arbitration Centre” accessible at <http://www.legalweek.com/legal- week/feature/2221770/follow-the-leader-emulating-singapores-success> 4 Richard Tan, “The Emergence of Singapore as a Global Arbitration Hub: Reasons for its Success” (2013) 79(4) Arbitration 436 1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Dinner Hosted by the Judiciary for the Forum of Senior Counsel
    DINNER HOSTED BY THE JUDICIARY FOR THE FORUM OF SENIOR COUNSEL FRIDAY, 14 MAY 2010 REMARKS BY CHIEF JUSTICE CHAN SEK KEONG Ladies and Gentlemen: My colleagues and I warmly welcome you to tonight’s dinner, the second that the Judiciary is hosting for the Forum of Senior Counsel. In particular, I would welcome my predecessor as AG, Mr Tan Boon Teik who, instead of relaxing at home, has taken the trouble to join us tonight. The presence of so many Judges of the Supreme Court and Senior Counsel augurs well for this annual series of dinners evolving into a tradition that will continue to strengthen the bonds between the Bar and the Judiciary. 2. This dinner is not meant to be an occasion for long boring speeches, so I will keep my remarks short and make only three points. First, the Institute of Legal Education is in the process of developing a framework for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in Singapore. Justice V K Rajah and his committee have been working very hard to set up a CPD programme that will be effective and meaningful to the Bar. It will be a serious programme, under which we will drag unwilling horses to the trough to drink. But we hope that the CPD programme will provide a true learning experience and not be a wasteful imposition on the Bar. It will be a great achievement if members of the Bar welcome this programme and not dismiss it as being a PR exercise. 2 3. When the CPD programme is finalised, we will need Senior Counsel and leading members of the corporate Bar to become lecturers, instructors and mentors.
    [Show full text]